Conspiracy Theorists: the NALs case

Status
Not open for further replies.

bilijou

New member
Jun 13, 2006
216
4
0
Conspiracy Theories (being as flexible as they are) are totally compatible with the socialist mindset. After all, to understand Marxism, you must divide society into the small evil elite class who rule over the poor masses. Most conspiracy theories tend to do the same: a small number of powerful people do the conspiracies. In many instances, as in countries in Latin America today, the need to ?uncover the truth? goes hand in hand with ?saving the masses from the bourgeoisie?.
For some reason conspiracy theories take over people?s minds enabling them ignore facts and even their degrees to get the kick out of ?uncovering the truth? (I think) no matter how ridiculous it is. NALs shows the typical signs: exaggeration, distorting facts, ignoring evidence and outright lie. One thing is for sure, logic doesn?t come into play in these people?s minds. I would go as far as saying it is a psychological condition. I've felt that this mentality would be VERY dangerous if it takes over Dominicans? minds at this critical point in our history. So I?ve felt responsible for trying to help clarify logic from empty rhetoric, and this might explain why I had gotten so heated before.

It was about time NALs pulled the ?you are new on this forum so you don?t know what you?re talking about!? again. Lulumba and rtejeda have said similar ridiculous statements as NALs, yet they didn?t receive the ?wow NALs what a great post! You are so insightful?. Is it because they were ?newbies??
Following the DR1 tradition, in response to his post, I will first attack NALs character. However, unlike many DR1-ers, I will not stop there and ignore his arguments or call him a ?newbie?. I will go for his irresponsible arguments.
(In response to his questions, I am pending graduation from NYU, business admin., close enough to economics [taken several advanced courses]. No, no Phd, but am actually planning on going into an economics related masters, for now I?m just an aficionado. I consider myself an economist at heart.)

Where did NALs go wrong?
1) ?Many people seem to not realize or not want to realize that the sole purpose of the existence of countries is to accumulate wealth into a few hands and the sole purpose of culture, religion, nationalism, law enforcing entities, the military, etc is to ensure that the masses don't see what's really going on. Thus, the masses will support their country, not knowing that by supporting their country they are supporting the ruling class who is not bound to such dillusional ways of thinking such as diying for the nation, flag waving, so on and so forth!? (post)
Before this ridiculous statement (typical conspiracy theorist), he had given us a peek into his mind with the question:
?Well can we really call them countries?? hinting at his idea that developing countries aren?t really sovereign.
I personally found that the term ?country? was too vague. But since he said it was ?Eurocentric? and citing a book describing recent politics I assumed that by ?country? he was referring to the Nation State model. The most comprehensive work done about this, as I said before, was Benedict Anderson?s who approaches its roots from a cultural/political perspective. NALs refers to the cultural, not political, since several of the elements mentioned, such as flags, religion and language are CULTURAL (they ARE a country?s culture). Republicanism came out of this. If anybody could recall the first hurdles among the new Republics of Latin America in the 19th century was changing the mentality from being elitist (where white criollos were the only citizens who ruled over the non-citizen Indian and blacks) to uniting all the people in the country under one banner, your country. Whether successful or not, is besides the point; the system shouldn?t be criticized because of the failure of those who put it in practice. The fact is that the creation of ?countries? pushed for inclusion rather than marginalization undermines his whole argument. I tried explaining it in terms of socialism, but still NALs has not responded to my counterargument and, though he claims it, has failed to explain how the creation of ?countries? is elitist.

2) The World Bank and the IMF, ?ARE THE SAME THING!? (post)
He changes his mind to, they are not the same thing but ?World Bank and IMF are each 51% owned by the US Treasury.? (post)
He then changes his mind again after reviewing facts to ?"The United States is the largest single shareholder, with 16.41 percent of the votes??(post)
If NALs were in a court of law his credibility would be shattered, anything he would say after this would be taken as doubtful. Fortunately we?re just in a forum.
What was said afterwards was even more ridiculous:
?In fact, the IMF was created to ensure the repayment of the debt Third World countries owed to banking institutions such as JP Morgan.? (post)
Both the IMF and World Bank were created during the infamous Bretton Woods conference. I won?t even go into the purpose or goals of the conference, but just think why would leaders from around the world meet up towards the end of WW2 to make sure debts are repaid to a private company such as JP Morgan?
(By this point, I?m thinking ?this guy is a complete idiot?)

3) The question of the year: is NALs really an economist?
I haven?t met the guy, I can?t say if he really does have a degree. One thing I CAN say is that no matter how many degrees he has, he is not a true economist at heart.
The first notice I get from him being an economist is:
?Bilijou, I'm an economist and may I recommend to you to take 3rd World Politics course?? (post)
First thing to observe is how a person introduces himself as an economist and cites a political science work in the same sentence. (oh, and I have taken many 3rd World politics courses not limited to Latin America) Most economists tend to be liberals (I actually haven?t met ONE that isn?t).

I ask myself, what are NALs sources? Ah, I got a clue, Connecticut universities?
?It's obvious that what you are claiming, for the most part, is NOT what is being tought in American universities?([URL="http://www.dr1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=424936&postcount=99"]post[/URL])
You?re right, this is NOT what is being taught in American universities. Let me throw in some facts. According to several studies made, Intelligence (IQ) and Education are the major determinants of whether you think like an economist, in the US population. (notice how thinking like an economist is equated with being pro-free trade/liberals in these studies) Despite this FACT, there is a tendency for those that who ARE intelligent and educated AND leftists to work or hang around universities. ( source) Anybody in the academic realm knows this. Pay someone to just think without regard for "competition" or "survival" does this to you. You don?t have to look far, remember the left in la UASD? And they are your sources?
In my university if you ask ANY historian or sociologist or political scientist, they will ALWAYS lean left (ex hippies and communists), against free trade, unlike an economist. None of their answers give a solution to a fact of life: we need to compete to survive (as someone mentioned before with the phrase survival of the fittest). I don?t think these people are stupid, I actually have a lot of respect for most of them. I just think that they focus only on human suffering while ignoring economics, creating utopian inefficient systems. A true economist can never ignore this fact.

?Economic theory is great and all (after all, I am an Economist, get that in your head!) but there is one tiny flaw in Economic theory and that is that it takes absolutely NO ACCOUNT FOR SOCIAL CONDITIONS!?(post)
If NALs were an economist at heart, yes he should take social conditions into account but should never ignore economics. From my understanding NALs is for protectionism (assuming from what he said about Japan). In a past thread, NALs and I were discussing mercantilism. (post) Back then I realized he wasn?t an economist since, though being completely against mercantilism, he didn?t explain the theory from an economics point of view but rather a political approach. If NALs were truly an economist, he would see little difference between protectionism and mercantilism. He would believe in comparative advantage and understand that everybody benefits from trade, very much unlike the ?zero sum? mercantilist view that only one side wins. He would see that the protectionism in mercantilism led to inefficiency and corruption. He would know that more competition leads to innovation which generates more wealth.

Instead of explaining the faults in economic theory (as an economist should), he AGAIN approaches it from a political view, the BOTTOM UP and TOP DOWN theory:
?Examples of top down democracies:
Dominican Republic, Iraq (it's in the process), Egypt, Philipines.
Examples of bottom up democracies:
Chile, Spain, Japan, Brazil (although it ended prematurely, but southern Brazil benefited immensely from this), China (it's in the process with its citizens in its wealthiest region being the most active in desiring more democracy, not so in more backward areas of China).
Of course there are more, but I am hoping readers of this thread would look at the histories of those countries and see how they are doing now economically and democratically. The coincidences are more than such!?
(post)
His definition of bottom up: ?Democracy from the bottom up surges from the will of the people.? (post)
My question is when was Chile, Spain and Brazil Bottom-Up? During Pinochet, Franco and Vargas? authoritarian regimes? Are they now?
When was economic development achieved? During the bottom up governments? These countries have gone through so many phases that by simplifying it into ?bottom up? and ?top down? would be retarded for any economist. In some, most economic development was achieved during bottom-up and in some it was top-down, there is no coincidence.

Also, notice the size of the internal markets in these countries. If you were to open a business in DR, how big can it grow when you can only market to a maximum of 9 million people (out of which half are poor and can?t buy your product)? Is that the way to wealth?

Now, I will agree the way Leonel (as Mexico and many other countries that have signed FTA?s) is going about it is completely wrong. I am guessing he, as many, is following the ?East Asian Tiger? export driven economic models. The problem is that these countries had always been focused on education even before they applied the strategy. They also had high savings for reinvestment. The failure of many Latin American leaders to see this (and other factors as corruption and obstacles to operating a business), doesn?t mean that we should discard Free Trade in general. It would be irresponsible. This forum is for the ?exchange of ideas?, but these ideas should be based on facts. The difference between NALs and me is that I back everything up with facts, he backs it up with ideas from ?people he has discussed it with?.

As I had suspected, it was only a matter of time before the ?anti-free trade? conspiracy theorists of South America showed interest in DR. Yesterday I read how known ?anti-free trade? organizations, the International Socialist organization and COPPPAL, decided to ?mediate? disputes between members of the Dominican party of the masses, PRD. And they are not the only ones. Many organizations and groups are targeting the poor with these conspiracy theories. It is only a matter of time before we get an idiot like Chavez in DR.

I?m done with this forum.
 

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,370
3,150
113
Madre mia!

Bilijou, relax. The sky is not falling because you and I desagree on a particular subject. If anything, the last time I referred to you was by asking you to let us know where you come from, what's your logic behind your ideas, your opinions.

Granted, I might have come through a little "harsh", but the best way to get a person talking is by attacking their ego.

Little did I know that doing such thing to Bilijou would result in him (or her) creating the longest post ever on DR1.com and (oh, this is the funny part) all about mua!!!

Never has there been a DR1er who has given as much attention and time and effort to type the longest post ever on DR1.com especially when the subject matter is myself!

Why did this came about? Perhaps I struck a cord that bilijou did not like. Ah well, who knows! What we do know is that bilijou is bothered by something, because the longest post ever does not comes out of the blue or without provocation. :paranoid:

Listen, stop focusing on a person and begin answering the question I posted on the last post I created towards you. In case you missed it, here it is one more time:

bilijou said:
To bilijou:

Can you please elaborate from what source / educational insitution you have come to your conclusions?

It's obvious that what you are claiming, for the most part, is NOT what is being tought in American universities. This is particularly true when it comes to geopolitics.

Now, would you please elaborate on your source for all of that?

Everyone I have discussed this with (which includes current professors at various universities in Connecticut AND former U.S. military men who have also gained Doctorates in geopolitic) has reaffirmed what I have been stating. In addition to all of this, they even influenced the way I used to perceive the world into what it actually is.

Until then, I have no interest in your opinions nor in the holy-than-thou approach you seem to be portraying, assuming DR1ers are neither college educated nor in accordance with the realities of the world we live in!

You rejected Tordok in another thread, despite the fact that he is a well educated person who is respected by everybody in this forum except you, the newbie!

In fact, you have been rejecting everyone in every single subject you have been posting without taking into consideration the reality that there are DR1.com members who are former U.S. military men, current linguist experts, economists, experts in geopolitics, engineering, so on and so forth!

On top of that, you even insulted Rick Snyder, one of the moderators of this board simply because he was doing his job as a moderator and you rejected to being reminded that this website does not functions according to your rules, but to the rules established by Dolores and Robert and the moderators!

Explain yourself now, otherwise don't bother responding to my postings, especially if you continue with your subtle personal attacks, as if you have the ultimate understanding of what the world is like and everybody else is wrong!

This site is a place where people EXCHANGE IDEAS, nothing more and nothing less. This is not a bilijou comes to save the day with his superiority over every DR1 member complex.

I'm waiting....

-NALs
 

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,370
3,150
113
Oh no, we've all given up on Nals and he is mostly in the 'don´t pay too much attention to this and skim it lightly in 3 seconds or less' category. If you're done with it, who is going to take Nals to task. ;)

We need economists on this forum.
Gee, since when does Switzerland comes to the rescue!!!!

All this time I thought the Swiss were neutral! :paranoid: :cheeky:

Or is it South Africa?? Oh well!!!

-NALs
 
Last edited:

Chris

Gold
Oct 21, 2002
7,951
28
0
www.caribbetech.com
Gee, since when does Switzerland comes to the rescue!!!!

All this time I thought the Swiss were neutral! :paranoid: :cheeky:

-NALs

Nals, you are so wrong it is funny and tedious all at the same time! (added) .. just had a thought. Why don't you just ask me?

Shall we now stay on topic here?

The topic here is your economist tendencies or not ;)
 

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,370
3,150
113
Nals, you are so wrong it is funny and tedious all at the same time! (added) .. just had a thought. Why don't you just ask me?

Shall we now stay on topic here?

The topic here is your economist tendencies or not ;)
The decision at the fork was yours, I only followed.

In anycase, you have been on this board for MUCH longer than bilijou! Thus, you know where I stand regarding economics and the country.

It's obvious bilijou has done ABSOLUTELY NO RESEARCH on DR1.com to see where I stand on the economic issue. If he had, he would had seen the multitude of posts I have made regarding the economy of the DR and economics in general and he would know that everything he posted here regarding me being a conspiracy theorist is nothing more than pure bolony!

Example: here is a quick post I made back in 2004 (tell me, is this the work of a conspiracist?

This was from the thread regarding the instability in the Dominican peso at the end of 2004. I began responding because some members were grossly overestimating what could have happened, without evaluating the economic realities of the country at that time and consequently, misapplying economic theory or dismissing it all together.

This is only one of many.
NALs said:
You do know that prices never (in any economy) are eager to fall as fast as they are to rise, do you?

21% decline in market basket prices might still be short of excellent, but it sure is a heck better than it would otherwise had been, that is on a realistic note.

By realistic I mean realizing and accepting that prices don't drop as fast as they go up, so any decline (big or small) is better than no decline. Let's see how the year end, another 21% decline in prices on top of the one that already has taken place would be a blessing, don't you think...

The one's who pay for that decline won't be me, but those who couldn't afford anything before Hippo was even around!

Prices are falling and if things continue as they are, by this time next year everybody here will stop whinning so much as they see the positive effects of this!

-NALs
 
Last edited:

Guatiao

El Leon de los Cacicazgos
Mar 27, 2004
474
8
0
38
Interesting thread, bilijou. Although I agree with some of your points, you also seem to miss some points of NALs previous thread.

Are "countries" created by the "elites" or by "the people"?

I can easily agree with NALs if we take historical facts into account. The Roman empire was built by the elites, the Ceasers extended the empire through warfare, the people did not have a say, same applies to the U.S., France, Spain, and most of todays existing countries. Very few countries were established by the people, afterall Hawaii did not choose to become a state and part of the USA; the only country that comes to mind that might even be remotely considered to be started by the people is modern Cuba and we all have seen how that has turned out.

Reading your posts, I conclude, you define countries by culture, nationalism, and/or racial makeup of the people. Technically that does define a country but would strangers ever feel connected (social-nationalism) if it were not for the past events that lead to the creation of said country? Most "people" were manipulated by a few, such as the case in Dominican Republic, were a few wealthy land owners and accepted mulattos rebelled against the Haitian government (according to some historical documents, the poor liked the Haitian government), if it were not for those rich and unsatisfied "men" would have the DR existed? Would the sterotypes that the "elite" gave the Haitians exist (Xenophobia-Dominican culture)? Although I do agree with you, those characteristics certainly make up a country, you must also examine the past actions that have created those traditions and culture of said country. It is my belief that the elites, intellectuals, and established people with in a given society are the leaders of the country and culture, therefore, the lower classes will try to emulate those at the top, therefore they create or shape the culture in one form or another.

Both of you are correct, but with different points of view regarding history, when does a country become a country? Is it when the rulers draw the borders (splitting of resources, income, etc) or is it when the people feel they share a common bond (nationalism, pride, sports,etc.)?

Economic views:
1. I get the feeling, bilijou, does not like socialism or communism. Although I believe both socialism and communism are failed economic and political models, one can learn alot from these systems and should not be disgarded as "liberal crap". Our current economic systems are leading the earth towards failure (biosphere, environmental, social sense), although capitalism is good (depending on which side your own: rich or poor), my own interpretation of NALs posts is that one cannot just look at money but for the human causes behind economics and world politics. I must also say this, you cannot say person is not a professional ________ just due to personal point of views, afterall some scientists believe in god and religion and they still try to state the metaphysical/paranormal world does not exist, therefore, NALs might be an economist, he just might be a different type of economist or have a diffferent point of view.

2. On the other points; I won't comment, after reading Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins and a few other books, I must say I cannot make a conclusion whether these organizations are "evil" or "good". One must always remember we can read all we want about any particular historical subject but in the end we do not know what really happen or why organizations are really formed because history is written by those in power and it can be changed. For example, according to the Turkish government the Armenian genocide never occurred.

Before, bilijou or anybody calls me a "liberal" or "republican", I must say, I am an elitist and believe the cows must be branded and the animals separated..... and I am not here to defend NALs or any other poster.... you guys can't afford my legal fees.

FIN.
Capo
 

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,370
3,150
113
Are "countries" created by the "elites" or by "the people"?

I can easily agree with NALs if we take historical facts into account. The Roman empire was built by the elites, the Ceasers extended the empire through warfare, the people did not have a say, same applies to the U.S., France, Spain, and most of todays existing countries. Very few countries were established by the people, afterall Hawaii did not choose to become a state and part of the USA; the only country that comes to mind that might even be remotely considered to be started by the people is modern Cuba and we all have seen how that has turned out.

Capo
I would say not even Cuba! The entire revolution was initiated and continues to exist in Cuba due to the Castro family, who are still the cream of the crop as far as prestige and respect and authority in Cuba.

The Castro family were rich. In fact, Fidel's father was an immigrant from Spain who amassed large estate and from there built his wealth.

Today, Cuba is being ruled by government elites who can't be voted out of power. Everyone in the upper levels of that bureacracy is hand picked by Fidel himself!

capodominicano said:
Reading your posts, I conclude, you define countries by culture, nationalism, and/or racial makeup of the people. Technically that does define a country but would strangers ever feel connected (social-nationalism) if it were not for the past events that lead to the creation of said country? Most "people" were manipulated by a few, such as the case in Dominican Republic, were a few wealthy land owners and accepted mulattos rebelled against the Haitian government (according to some historical documents, the poor liked the Haitian government), if it were not for those rich and unsatisfied "men" would have the DR existed? Would the sterotypes that the "elite" gave the Haitians exist (Xenophobia-Dominican culture)? Although I do agree with you, those characteristics certainly make up a country, you must also examine the past actions that have created those traditions and culture of said country. It is my belief that the elites, intellectuals, and established people with in a given society are the leaders of the country and culture, therefore, the lower classes will try to emulate those at the top, therefore they create or shape the culture in one form or another.
My argument was not against those points, but rather that those aspects of a country are created by the ruling elites in order to keep the masses loyal to them and their goal.

Personally, I don't think this is a negative thing at all, in fact I think its necessary in order for the modern complex nation-state to exist.

However, culture is not defined by political boundaries. There are many types of people around the world who are unified by a culture and divided by political boundaries (look at the Kurds all over Asia Minor and Middle East).

However, a society is defined by the ruling elites. In Third World country is much easier to see because the boundaries are sharp and very visible. Not so in developed nations, but even there you can see.

Look at the US, the entire country was colonized by New Englanders. The New England elites (some of whom have dispersed to other areas but still, they are of New England heritage) were the one's who rebelled against England, the one's who expanded westward, the one's who defined what it means to be an American, and the one's who shaped and continue to shape this country!

Every region in the US has visible New England influences, however in New England there are almost no influences from any other region of the US! In essence, the rest of the US is a "colony" of New England (with some exceptions of course).

So yes, Capo is right!

capodominicano said:
Both of you are correct, but with different points of view regarding history, when does a country become a country? Is it when the rulers draw the borders (splitting of resources, income, etc) or is it when the people feel they share a common bond (nationalism, pride, sports,etc.)?
We are both correct, but I am arguing that countries exist for the control of resources whereas bilijou is saying that countries exist for other reasons.

Capitalism is based on the notion of private property and other things and the creation of a nation gives a group of people (whomever creates that nation) absolute control over the exploitation and development of that peace of real estate, including any indigenous or non-civilized peoples who may inhabit that place.

Of course, in order for all of this to work, you have to make those people loyal to your country and from this nationalism starts. You need to make them loyal to your authority, to the authority of the state.

When driving, what makes a person stop at a stop sign? Is it the sign made of non-living metal? The color red of the sign? The word 'STOP' on the sign? The cultural belief in stoping at a stop sign? Or is it the police force who enforce the stop sign law?

To who does the police belong? To the state or the people?

To who does the state responds to, people with money or impoverished people?

When does legislation for protecting molested children managed to pass? When million of girls were molested or when multi-billionare Oprah Winfrey spoke to a panel of senators in Washington, DC?

How come that one person has more power than millions of less wealthy individuals?

I am not saying whether this is good or bad, just or unjust, right or wrong. But, I am saying that this is the world we live in.

capodominicano said:
Economic views:
1. I get the feeling, bilijou, does not like socialism or communism. Although I believe both socialism and communism are failed economic and political models, one can learn alot from these systems and should not be disgarded as "liberal crap". Our current economic systems are leading the earth towards failure (biosphere, environmental, social sense), although capitalism is good (depending on which side your own: rich or poor), my own interpretation of NALs posts is that one cannot just look at money but for the human causes behind economics and world politics. I must also say this, you cannot say person is not a professional ________ just due to personal point of views, afterall some scientists believe in god and religion and they still try to state the metaphysical/paranormal world does not exist, therefore, NALs might be an economist, he just might be a different type of economist or have a diffferent point of view.
Indeed! I also detest socialism and communism, but just because I have a particular distaste for that ideology does not means that I will not give it credit when credit is due!

capodominicano said:
2. On the other points; I won't comment, after reading Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins and a few other books, I must say I cannot make a conclusion whether these organizations are "evil" or "good". One must always remember we can read all we want about any particular historical subject but in the end we do not know what really happen or why organizations are really formed because history is written by those in power and it can be changed. For example, according to the Turkish government the Armenian genocide never occurred.
Good point!

capodominicano said:
Before, bilijou or anybody calls me a "liberal" or "republican", I must say, I am an elitist and believe the cows must be branded and the animals separated..... and I am not here to defend NALs or any other poster.... you guys can't afford my legal fees.

FIN.
Consider yourself lucky if a label has not been created by now!

Your response was balance, concise, and to the point.

-NALs
 

bilijou

New member
Jun 13, 2006
216
4
0
Chris,
I had thought this forum was, as NALs said in a past thread, about exchanging ideas. It is very similar to the academic world. You publish a paper with an argument, and you risk having a counterargument. Depending on how strong your argument is, it will stick. I thought this was logical or at least understood. Unfortunately, this is not how this forum works. The strength of your argument is overridden by their impression of the person’s character and how long the member has been in the forum (the number after “posts:#”). I’ve been teamed up against for being the “newbie” as if the time you have spent in the forum is a reflection of your knowledge.
After pointing out the inconsistencies in his arguments (and the facts he based it on), he doesn’t defend/clary it or admit he was wrong. He doesn’t say anything with substance. He says “Listen, stop focusing on a person” and he follows it by one of his previous posts questioning my background rather than my arguments, “focusing on a person”. Conspiracies have him confused, hehe. (And by the way, I don’t say any of his questions which I haven’t answered, please point them out.)
So what does the “economist” do next? He pulls the “are you siding with the newbie” at you with “All this time I thought the Swiss were neutral!”
This is what ****es me off. Interesting wording, “neutral”.

He follows with his “shining moments” in 2004 when he did read up his old economics books and proved everybody wrong:
“This was from the thread regarding the instability in the Dominican peso at the end of 2004. I began responding because some members were grossly overestimating what could have happened, without evaluating the economic realities of the country at that time and consequently, misapplying economic theory or dismissing it all together.” Haha…

I’m not gonna waste my time… He has evaded every single one of my arguments.
 

bilijou

New member
Jun 13, 2006
216
4
0
capodominicano,
I’m glad you clarified NALs way of thinking, as he was opposed to it. However, the question wasn’t “are countries created by the elites or by the people?” I was responding to NALs statement:
“Many people seem to not realize or not want to realize that the sole purpose of the existence of countries is to accumulate wealth into a few hands and the sole purpose of culture, religion, nationalism, law enforcing entities, the military, etc is to ensure that the masses don't see what's really going on.”
He specifies “the sole purpose” not who created the countries. Unless there is a country that has NO hierarchy (i.e., impossible), the elite will always be the ones who build it, they have the resources.

Also, I started my answer to that question by saying that the word “country” was too vague, but since his book was about recent politics I will assume he was referring to the Nation-state model. The roots of the nation-state model is at most 400 years old, not before the Roman empire. (Look it up) I never mentioned “racial makeup” has anything to do with the creation of a country.

This is very interesting:
capodominicano said:
Reading your posts, I conclude, you define countries by culture, nationalism, and/or racial makeup of the people. Technically that does define a country but would strangers ever feel connected (social-nationalism) if it were not for the past events that lead to the creation of said country? Most "people" were manipulated by a few, such as the case in Dominican Republic, were a few wealthy land owners and accepted mulattos rebelled against the Haitian government (according to some historical documents, the poor liked the Haitian government), if it were not for those rich and unsatisfied "men" would have the DR existed?

According to Anderson (whose theory I believe), what makes a “strangers feel connected” are “shared experiences”. We, Dominicans, do similar things and even those who “feel like strangers in their own land” have some experience they only share with Dominicans. This could be a genre of music, food, television show, or (very important) language (notice how European borders are defined by language and how our language makes us Dominican) anything. This idea of “shared experience” goes to the extent that some of the foreigners in DR1 feel like they are Dominican (it gets more complex with transnationalism). This community sense is where nationalism (from which socialism sprung from) comes from. The birth of DR came out of this sense of community, where language, religion and traditions were important factors.
Here’s how it went down in Latin America. Among the whites there were the conservatives (pro-Spain) and the liberals (pro-independence). Independence wasn’t achieved by the slaveowning Eurocentric conservatives (Pedro Santana, Buenaventura Baez who pushed for annexation) but by the liberals (Juan Pablo Duarte and later Gregorio Luperon). The liberals were cool with the lower class blacks and Indians; after all, Simon Bolivar’s headquarters was the first nation created from ex-slave owners, Haiti. It was the liberals who felt nativism.
When does a nation become a nation? When there is shared experience and a sense of community. It is all about imagined boundaries.

Economic views:
1. I haven’t disregarded socialism, but we have to be selective as to what we take from it. “My own interpretation of NALs posts is that one cannot just look at money but for the human causes behind economics and world politics.”
What economics policies? What world politics? Any?
What I said was that NALs wasn’t an economist at heart, he might have a degree, who knows? I don’t see how an economist would foresee the inconsistencies I pointed out in my first post and only takes the political approach. I see no signs of him being an economist other than him saying so. If he is a different type of economist and has a different view, he should be able to implement it in economics terms not political.
If he does have a degree, he is refuting everything he’s learned:
“Capitalism is based on the notion of private property and other things and the creation of a nation gives a group of people (whomever creates that nation) absolute control over the exploitation and development of that peace of real estate, including any indigenous or non-civilized peoples who may inhabit that place.”
Private property is one of the basic assumptions in economics. What incentives do you have to generate wealth if you don’t know if you can keep it?
Private property extends to intellectual property, think patents. Do you know how much more wealth is generated by invention than capital? Remember the classes about Robert Solows findings (though they were a bit off)?

As I said, he might be an economist by degree, but not at heart.

2. What organizations? The IMF and World Bank?
I think it is dangerous to classify anything as “good” or “evil”. I agree that these organizations push free trade policies, but governments can and do borrow from other institutions, many commercial. The low interest rates are tempting.

No need for name calling. Just don’t pull a NALs on me and avoid what I said and ask me for my background.
 

qgrande

Bronze
Jul 27, 2005
805
4
0
Chris,
I had thought this forum was, as NALs said in a past thread, about exchanging ideas. It is very similar to the academic world. You publish a paper with an argument, and you risk having a counterargument. Depending on how strong your argument is, it will stick. I thought this was logical or at least understood. Unfortunately, this is not how this forum works

I can understand that if you expect discussions on a forum like this to be similar to exchanges of arguments through articles and conference papers in the academic world, you might be a little dissapointed. Just take it for what it is, an internet forum with quite a few people that are really knowledgeable in their specific field, and some that are not, all allowed to voice their opinion. No need to have an abstract approved by referees before contributing :).
By the way, you appear pretty smitten with Benedict Anderson. If you haven't already you might enjoy having a look at Gellner's 'Nations and Nationalsim'. Both share the thesis that you haven't mentioned yet, but which might be the most interesting for an economist (which I certainly am not), that is that it was technological and industrial modernisation that facilitated the emergence of a world of nation-states.
 

Tuan

New member
Aug 28, 2004
204
2
0
Billijou: keep on keeping on, guy.
I don't know how such clear thinking can come out of New York, let alone academic New York. Stay there until just before the jihadists flatten it, because you are needed there. But get out in time for sure, because you are desperately needed in many other venues.

Meanwhile, though your writing is clear and comprehensible, anyone can write more effectively. Certainly I can. For woundrous concision with clarity you can't do better than follow the style of "the smartest man in America", economist Thomas Sowell. The content you already have down.
 
Last edited:

deelt

Bronze
Mar 23, 2004
987
2
0
What a RIOT!!!

I absolutely LOVED reading your original post. It reads like a short preface to one of NALs (or Nal0whs, his previous name after been found out as a fraud) frequent I-will-do-say-anything-to-support-my-position type post. He is the ultimate politician trying to pass for an econ grad student @ U of Ct. (If even that tale is true, as you so hilariously and poignantly point out.):bunny:

I was rolling on the floor laughing. Man, you are so on point that it hurts. I feel your pain since I was there last year. I figured I have better things to do with my time and my ideas. Rather than talking about it, just be about it. Go and change the world, one person at a time. Let NALs and his supporters (ha!) do their thing. You do yours. I'll bet that you will come out ahead. :)

You said, "Most economists tend to be liberals (I actually haven?t met ONE that isn?t)." There are some less liberal, more conservative. Ben Bernanke, now chair of the Fed can be categorized as such. He is also a nice quiet guy. I'm just glad he didn't increase interest rates yesterday. :)

While I haven't checked where you stand on many other issues, know that I'm an "oldie" (as you know that is very relative in this forum) that's supporting your posting here. I am sure there are many others that just haven't gotten a chance to post that can meet you mentally to support many of the well-substantiated arguments you posit.

Check your PM.

-Deelt
 

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,370
3,150
113
As I said, he might be an economist by degree, but not at heart.
Ah, you are different from most DR1ers here! Most would had taken the bait... kidding!

You're right.

In purely economic discussions I can and often do give the most liberal pro free market diatribe as any other economist does today. But, the difference is that in purely economic discussions one has to refer to everything in well, purely economic.

However, the discussions from the previous thread and to a certain extent this thread were political and I gave my political view. That I refused to inject the economic theories that I also believe in was more to not contradict my own self since I do believe in everything I have stated as an economist and in all the opinions I have presented regarding politics.

Politics is politics and economics is economics.

In addition to all of this, I am a person that MOST people (online and off line) have a hard time understanding, mostly because people expect for everyone to be consistent with their ideas in everything and I am not consistent.

Often times I look at things in a purely abstract way and can come to a conclusion that is liberal in one thing and conservative in another, soley because I based my opinion on that particular abstract issue.

I look at everything within their own spectrum and I judge everything accordingly, without mixing them with other ideas or rationale.

I don't feel the need to try to maintain a particular liberal or conservative view in all my opinions in everything in life. If I feel and think a conservative thought on one thing and a liberal thought on another, then that is what I think and I will voice my opinions accordingly. That there are people out there who fail to recognize that there are people who can be both conservative and liberal, then what can anyone do to make them understand that the world is not either black or white, there are shades inbetween.

And it's not just between politics and economics, but with everything. Depending on the subject, I am extremely liberal or conservative or undecisive (sometimes more liberal and other times more conservative on the same issue). The one thing that I never am is consistent with all my ideas because I don't feel the need to do so.

And to conclude, while I don't consider myself a socialist or communist, I do give Karl Marx credit where credit is due. Surprise surprise, not only was Karl Marx a German, but he was also an economist who happened to notice some of the contradictions present in liberal economic theory. Karl Marx also mixed his theories with political and sociological aspects leading to his complete detachment from liberal economic theory to a more radical theory.

In the end, he was an economist to the detriment of all of those who claim economists are only liberal and if otherwise then they are not economists!

-NALs
 

bilijou

New member
Jun 13, 2006
216
4
0
qgrande,
I’m putting Gellner’s “Nations and Nationalism” on my must-read list. In an attempt to understand the abnormal sense of Dominican identity and lack of cultural unity (which I think is an impediment to economic development and a cause for corruption), I came across Anderson. It completely changed how I saw history, language, nationalism, socialism and culture. In turn, it explains what I call the Dominican identity crisis. Beyond that, this idea of imagined boundaries manifested through nationalism explains many of the conflicts in the world today (the resurgence of Arab Nationalism). Reading up on Gellner’s views, I see that he has influenced many governments with the idea of culture standardization. Thanks for the suggestion.

I know, this is just an internet forum. The problem with me is that I don’t see the point in “debating” if no depth can be achieved. In order to achieve depth in our discussions, we need to agree on some facts/arguments and build on that. I thought it was about learning new things, these discussions prompt you to investigate and question your own standing on issues, but we must put our prides aside.

Tuan,
Come on, New Yorkers aren’t that bad, hehe. :p
I must admit, when I write in this forum I don’t aim for eloquence. I’m not focusing on style, I write how I speak. As for effectiveness, I must disagree. Every other day I end up in a political discussion with a Dominican (in a bodega or taxi) which inevitably delves into more complex political, economic and cultural concepts. Instead of throwing in “big words” (from which cue they tune out), I ask them questions and get them to reason it in their heads (it really works). I’ve found that you don’t have to be educated to understand what you need from the “academics”, as long as it is kept simple. I assume most readers here are educated, but since most are not economists, keeping it simple makes it so much more accessible (and at the same time effective) to everybody.

Deelt,
Bernanke is cool, I doubt he will be a Greenspan though. :)
You don’t have to agree with my standing on other issues, as long as we both keep an open mind to each other’s ideas.

NALs,
I know what you mean. You take different positions depending on how you approach it. I must urge you, though you’ve already claimed it as one of your personality traits, to reconsider that methodology to understanding world issues. Aside from not being very objective, it ignores the fact that any argument you make has implications (which are sometimes equally or more important than the argument).

At one point, I was torn between the two completely different ideologies that in many aspects contradicted themselves (the opposing views of many of my professors contributed to this polarization). There can only be one truth, and the opposing views couldn’t settle in my head. I had to know why Dominicans are poor. I always pictured myself in a position of power, and (being in the management field) always believed in “optimal decisions” that would yield the most benefit for Dominicans. These optimal decisions should take into account everything from economics to politics to culture (rather than based one approach at a time). Economic thinktanks around the world are realizing more everyday that politics, culture and sociology must be implemented into economic development policies.
 
Last edited:

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,370
3,150
113
This is more of a general statement, not directed to bilijou per se

NALs,
I know what you mean. You take different positions depending on how you approach it. I must urge you, though you?ve already claimed it as one of your personality traits, to reconsider that methodology to understanding world issues. Aside from not being very objective, it ignores the fact that any argument you make has implications (which are sometimes equally or more important than the argument).

At one point, I was torn between the two completely different ideologies that in many aspects contradicted themselves (the opposing views of many of my professors contributed to this polarization). There can only be one truth, and the opposing views couldn?t settle in my head. I had to know why Dominicans are poor. I always pictured myself in a position of power, and (being in the management field) always believed in ?optimal decisions? that would yield the most benefit for Dominicans. These optimal decisions should take into account everything from economics to politics to culture (rather than based one approach at a time). Economic thinktanks around the world are realizing more everyday that politics, culture and sociology must be implemented into economic development policies.
I have always been aware that every argument I make has implications and I accept whatever the implications may be as they come. However, most often people react to my opinions based more on their personal agenda to "uncover" some sort of controversy or "expose" what ever contradiction there may be between my view on one thing vs another. What they fail to recognize is that, as I have said already, I take everything under its own context.

To include anything beyond that would be beyond the tangent of most threads.

If a thread is about politics in the DR, expect for me to give my political opinion without implicating any other theories that are not political.

If, however, people want a well rounded opinion which incorporates everything, then they should make the theme of their threads in such manner as well.

That's how I have approached each and every single thread and some DR1ers got it, but most never did!

Most were too concerned with who I am rather than what I am saying or ever said. It's not that I never expected this, because I did. Afterall, people in general never see a person for what they are, rather they want to know who you are in order for them to make an opinion of you and judge your opinions based on their interpretation of who you are and not what you say.

It goes without saying that many failed to see beyond the person they imagine vs. what the person says. It reminds me of the age old American question: If you were taking an exam and to your right there was a white person and to you left there was a black person and you had to cheat, from who will you cheat?

It's all based on who the person is, not so much on the knowledge of the person.

Seems the samething continues to occur on this site with certain member, not to mention that the distinction between those who simply get angry when anger is understandable and those who develop real hatred and discord is as clear as it can be.

-NALs

-NALs
 

deelt

Bronze
Mar 23, 2004
987
2
0
Bilijou,

On Bernanke, give him a chance. He's brilliant and has good political instincts, else he would not have made it that long. For sure, he's still learning the market culture.

NALs,

Now, here is a guarantee: You continue to make me laugh.

Joke 1: Afterall, people in general never see a person for what they are,... [people] judge your opinions based on their interpretation of who you are and not what you say.

A take: People ARE their words, their language. Thus, you ARE what you speak into existence in these types of forums. The board is the epitome of a virtual written reality of the knowledge you possess. If who you are is inconsistent with who you say you are then that speaks to your character. It's not a coincidence that you have to acknowledge your inconsistency and contradictions; instability and chaos is all you have left to own in any context. Frankly, I, albeit fleetingly, wonder if even you know who you are.

Joke 2: If you were taking an exam and to your right there was a white person and to you left there was a black person and you had to cheat, from who will you cheat? This is an age old American question? I'm cracking up on this.

No, NALs, no. I don't have any deep seeded hatred here, just pity. I just have a world out there to experience.

PEACE

Most were too concerned with who I am rather than what I am saying or ever said. It's not that I never expected this, because I did. Afterall, people in general never see a person for what they are, rather they want to know who you are in order for them to make an opinion of you and judge your opinions based on their interpretation of who you are and not what you say.

It goes without saying that many failed to see beyond the person they imagine vs. what the person says. It reminds me of the age old American question: If you were taking an exam and to your right there was a white person and to you left there was a black person and you had to cheat, from who will you cheat?

It's all based on who the person is, not so much on the knowledge of the person.
 

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,370
3,150
113
NALs,

Now, here is a guarantee: You continue to make me laugh.

Joke 1: Afterall, people in general never see a person for what they are,... [people] judge your opinions based on their interpretation of who you are and not what you say.

A take: People ARE their words, their language. Thus, you ARE what you speak into existence in these types of forums. The board is the epitome of a virtual written reality of the knowledge you possess. If who you are is inconsistent with who you say you are then that speaks to your character. It's not a coincidence that you have to acknowledge your inconsistency and contradictions; instability and chaos is all you have left to own in any context. Frankly, I, albeit fleetingly, wonder if even you know who you are.

Joke 2: If you were taking an exam and to your right there was a white person and to you left there was a black person and you had to cheat, from who will you cheat? This is an age old American question? I'm cracking up on this.

No, NALs, no. I don't have any deep seeded hatred here, just pity. I just have a world out there to experience.

PEACE
Um, where is the screenname Deelt on my post?

Why would you think I was referring to you? Did you ever thought I was referring to those DR1 members who are constantly on the bandwagon and yet refurse to use the ignore feature as oppose to someone who only gets into the bandwagon once in a long while?

If I really wanted to say something to you, I would had addressed it exclusively to you as I always have done in the past.

Aside from all of this, your beef is not even for what happened in January, it goes much further than that. You are simply using the January insident to your advantage, sounds alot like a.... politician....:surprised

When I want anyone's advice I will ask for it. Unsolicited "advice" I take them with a grain of salt, because usually such advices are more about the person making them rather than the person such "advice" is being directed to.

Why did you post what you did? Why would you actually feel the need to post something to me?

Oh yes, it's not about me at all, but rather about you.

Nuff said! :ermm:

-NALs
 

deelt

Bronze
Mar 23, 2004
987
2
0
Hey NALs

It doesn't matter if your post was to me or not. I was just expressing my opinions to your post. It is a free posting board where all could post unless otherwise blocked by management; last I checked, I was a poster in good standing.

Now, why do you think I have beef with you? I don't. I actually could care less. I was actually pulled in by Bilijou's post. I thought it was interesting, accurate, intelligent and just plain compelling. The post pulled me to even want to engage in the discussion. His grasp of development economic/political topics is just tight and distinct like that. His researching skills are commendable as well.

I also was not trying to provide you with any advice. I can see the lash-out technique defenses coming up. (Isn't that the ole' kill the ego, the messenger and any other poster that stands in the way technique seen in DR1?)

I actually try to plant where I can expect fruit to grow, on good soil.

Ciao 'til the next funny post. Thanks for the laugh.

Um, where is the screenname Deelt on my post?

Why would you think I was referring to you? Did you ever thought I was referring to those DR1 members who are constantly on the bandwagon and yet refurse to use the ignore feature as oppose to someone who only gets into the bandwagon once in a long while?

If I really wanted to say something to you, I would had addressed it exclusively to you as I always have done in the past.

Aside from all of this, your beef is not even for what happened in January, it goes much further than that. You are simply using the January insident to your advantage, sounds alot like a.... politician....:surprised

When I want anyone's advice I will ask for it. Unsolicited "advice" I take them with a grain of salt, because usually such advices are more about the person making them rather than the person such "advice" is being directed to.

Why did you post what you did? Why would you actually feel the need to post something to me?

Oh yes, it's not about me at all, but rather about you.

Nuff said! :ermm:

-NALs
 
Status
Not open for further replies.